I understand that global thermonuclear war could cause serious damage, but I’m not aware of any credible efforts that can prove they’re moving things in the right direction.
There’s no particular reason to believe this is going to make global thermonuclear war any less likely. Russia and United States aren’t particularly likely to start a global thermonuclear warfare anytime soon, and in longer perspective any major developed country, if it wanted, could build nuclear arsenals sufficient to make a continent uninhabitable within a few years.
There’s also this argument that mutually assured destruction was somehow stabilizing and preventing nuclear warfare—the only use of nuclear weapons so far happened when the other side had no way to retaliate. I’m quite neutral on this—I’m unwilling to say that nuclear arms reductions either increase or decrease risk of global war (which will eventually turn nuclear or otherwise very nasty).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
This stuff, as slow and grinding as it is, does make a difference.
There’s no particular reason to believe this is going to make global thermonuclear war any less likely. Russia and United States aren’t particularly likely to start a global thermonuclear warfare anytime soon, and in longer perspective any major developed country, if it wanted, could build nuclear arsenals sufficient to make a continent uninhabitable within a few years.
There’s also this argument that mutually assured destruction was somehow stabilizing and preventing nuclear warfare—the only use of nuclear weapons so far happened when the other side had no way to retaliate. I’m quite neutral on this—I’m unwilling to say that nuclear arms reductions either increase or decrease risk of global war (which will eventually turn nuclear or otherwise very nasty).